memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Memory Alpha:Category suggestions
Provisional categories Starships, etc So far we have approved: * Category:Starships * Category:Starship classes We still have on the table: * Category:Federation starships <-(Already has all of them for A & B, sorry) or Category:Starfleet starships ** Category:Klingon starships, etc, for all races and powers with more than 10 or so ships. * Category:Shuttlecraft or Category:Small craft ** Category:Shuttlecraft classes or variant * a solution for the unnamed starship problem. This was never addressed the first time I posted, so I will delete it and try it again. =) As it now stands, we have Category:Starships, for those with names (ie [[USS Voyager|USS Voyager]]), and Category:Starship classes, for those with classes (ie ''Intrepid''-class) -- but what about the ships that do not fit into either category? I'm speaking of the scores of ships with names such as Andorian freighter, Cardassian transport, Talarian warship, Romulan interceptor and the like. Certainly enough of these ships exist (many of such can be found at freighter, transport, etc.) to warrant their own category! --Gvsualan 16:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC) :Anyone? --Gvsualan 11:52, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Are these unnamed ships cross-categorizable? After all, the Talarian warship is a design, so it is listable as a Category:Starship classes article -- but there were at least three or four individual ships seen, so it could be listed under Category:Starships -- for example, USS Farragut lists three or four Farraguts. ::These articles need to be disambiguated -- Cardassian transport is a ship type, a ship class, and this class has had more than one individual ship (confusingly, under Cardassian military freighter -- why isn't this "class/type" article for the Groumall under the identical ship type Cardassian transport). -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 18:18, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::See, I guess the fact that Talarian warship and the like are not specifically designated a class name (D'deridex class, Intrepid class, whatever) and we add it to Category:Starship classes it sort of messes up the asthetics of the list. When I see Talarian warship I see something very generic. Once we start mixing generic designations with specific ones it gets confusing. At that point, we might as well throw in Federation heavy cruiser and link all the specific classes (Constitution, Ambassador...etc) in that. Am I making any sense? I think the more generic class named ships shouldnt be mixed with the specific class named ships. --Gvsualan 22:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) :::: I guess I understand what you are saying...but I guess what I am essentially saying is...is there we separate the "specific" class names from the "generic" ones, say with subcategories or via some other method I am not aware of? --Gvsualan 07:37, 28 Jun 2005 (UTC) Subcategories of "Planet" categories Category:Earth *Category:Earth cities *Category:Earth regions *Category:Earth lifeforms. * would this be an opening for our first Category:People species category - a Category:Humans listing? Category:Timeline A category for all year, decade and century articles to remove those articles from the list. -- Cid Highwind 16:05, 12 Apr 2005 (EDT) :Support -- possibly with a sort key modified to put centuries over years, etc.. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 16:41, 12 Apr 2005 (EDT) Suport It would clean the uncategorized pages up so more important articles can be categorized and provide a easier timeline. Organizations I propose the creation of a supercategory "Organizations" -- this would basically be any group, including governments, corporations, militaries, teams, etc. Form *Supercategory: Category:Organizations -- this category contains all organizations articles in a list **Subcategories can be added at will from the following: ***Category:Governments ***Category:Corporations ***Category:Agencies -- covering both militaries, and governmental sub-agencies ****Category:Military units -- proposed at Memory Alpha:Category suggestions ***additional categories for other groups as they become identified -- i'm not sure if we have enough articles relevant for a Category:Music groups or Category:Sports teams, *** Category:Religions might be a possibility The question about this suggestion is -- should all these articles still be contained in the master category, or should we leave the supercategory containing only articles about "miscellaneous groups" that don't fall into any of the subcategories -- or would it even be preferable to create additional subcategory Category:Miscellaneous groups. Additionally, subcategories of major groups can and will be created upon suggestion and vote here -- once Category:Agencies has been approved, Category:Starfleet, Category:Tal Shiar, etcetera can be contained in it. :I don't recommend putting any articles in Category:Starfleet or any other organization at this level, however, because an additional tree structure must be discussed -- to prevent double listing articles that fall under both '''UFP' and Starfleet.'' There are a lot of organizations that may be deserving of a category heading -- this level will form a major portion of our tree structure if it is approved. Once approved, it will be easy to create multiple categories by writing one sample category makeup -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 21:49, 26 Mar 2005 (EST) Earth Category:Earth. with list subcategory Category:Earth cities. The cities category would cover the numerous Earth cities mentioned, and the broader Earth category would cover other aspects of the planet -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 23:22, 8 Mar 2005 (GMT) * would additional subcategory Category:Earth regions be prefereable for all of our nation, state and continent/island articles? * further subcategories could be applied for Category:Earth lifeforms. * would this be an opening for our first Category:People species category - a Category:Humans listing? :Does anyone have any further input whether or not i should create these categories? -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 10:19, 13 Mar 2005 (GMT) * Perhaps just a category of cities, to encompass both earth and alien cities, much like Category:Starships encompasses all starships Starfleet, and alien. Additionally, a category of regions to cover all states, counties, provinces, nations, regions, islands, etc. and -- a category of landforms for all mountains, continents, and the such...and if possible think of a broader term to include rivers lakes and oceans. --Alan del Beccio 06:26, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC) Suggested categories Storyline categories for episodes (Alison9) :(Moved from single suggestion for Category:Episodes) This is all very linear. I would like to see episodes categorized by other means as well. For instance, primary storyline. A possible tree for this could be: Culture *Federation **Human **Vulcan **Trill **Betazoid *Bajoran *Klingon *Romulan *Ferengi *Borg *Dominion *Cardassian Storyline *Medical *First Contact *Character Death *Romance *War Alison9 08:36, Jan 13, 2005 (CET) Comments I see some problems with this suggestion. First, we would have to find other category names - Category:Klingon might be a good category for "everything Klingon", and I think we shouldn't use a category for both "in-universe" and "meta-trek" articles at the same time. Second, there are many episodes that could be categorized in several of those categories - do we really want that, how would a "Category:Romantic episodes" be useful? Third, some of this information already exists - if an episode presents important information about Klingon culture, for example, it most likely is alread listed on Klingon or one of the Klingon subpages. -- Cid Highwind 09:35, 2005 Jan 13 (CET) :Could you define meta-trek? If an episode is a first contact medical I don't see how multi-categories is harmful. Wikipedia does it and gives a lot of value added, IMHO. To me the purpose of an encyclopedia is to help people find things. It's all well and good to find them in order, but I find myself wanting to go back and see certain storylines. Today I'm all about Kira/Odo, but three weeks from now I might want Janeway/Chakotay. As for your last point, given your example, do you think the culture categories aleady exist as entries and therefore should be taken away from the suggested tree? I actually think there is a more fundamental issue here. The category conversation seems to be driven by what is too much work and what isn't as opposed to long term gain. I think that might stem from not wanting to have incomplete information live. I think that can be solved by just deciding on a convention and then letting people create the proposed categories at will. That would mean I would create Category: Romantic episodes - Kira/Odo, Category: Romantic episodes - Jadzia Dax/Worf. The character names would be listed alphabetically but not every couple would have to be listed at once, contributors could add cannon couples as they were interested. Would that be a reasonabnle compromise? Alison9 09:57, Jan 13, 2005 (CET) "Meta-Trek" is a term we inofficially use for articles that aren't part of the Trek-universe itself. Generally, articles about "Trek items" (characters, planets, starships, ...) should be written as if they really exist (in-universe point of view). This leaves articles about Star Trek as a franchise, including episode summaries, articles about actors, directors, novels, video games etc. These are two separate classes of articles, and we try to avoid mixing those two as far as possible. As mentioned above, a "Category:Klingon" should contain Klingon people, Klingon ships and Klingon weapons, but not episodes about Klingons. Regarding your suggestion, I think that a "List of ..." article would be a much better choice in this case. In my opinion, a category is a good choice if more member articles could be added later (a "Jadzia/Worf romance" category would be pretty much finalized right now), if many editors might be willing to contribute to that category and/or if an article can't be categorized in several categories on the "same level" in a category tree at the same time. -- Cid Highwind 11:42, 2005 Jan 13 (CET) Starfleet I'd like to add a category for Starfleet subdivisions like Unit XY-75847. Perhaps Category:Starfleet, but that might have the tendency to overlap with too many other categories. Category:Military units might work too. Any other suggestions? -- Harry 15:29, 31 Jan 2005 (CET) :I definitely prefer the second suggestion - "Starfleet" would be too broad as a category title, and the second one would allow us to also list units and groups of other powers (if those exist). I don't have any suggestions regarding the exact title, but it should cover, for example, Star Fleet Battle Group Omega and the Starfleet Fleets. -- Cid Highwind 11:25, 21 Feb 2005 (GMT) :On the tree suggestion page, I started the Category:Organizations -- it contains Category:Governments and Category:Agencies -- the latter should contain Category:Starfleet if and when it is created. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk * I think the Starfleet category would be good to cover such Starfleet things, such as Communications_Research_Center or to act as a supercategory that would include Category:Federation starships or Starfleet personnel. --Alan del Beccio 06:31, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC) Subcategories for Category:Star Trek * Category:Collectibles -- just like we don't make an article for every comics release, this will mostly categorize companies that make collectibles, or, if article sizes increase, subarticles dealing with series of collectibles. * Category:DVDs -- to categorize all the superb DVDs artticles created recentlytalk:Captainmike|talk]] 17:24, 14 May 2005 (UTC) * Category:Production companies -- list category based on Production companies list. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel Category:Memory Alpha pages marked for deletion A maintenance category, i fell placing a tag in both the article, and image, deletion template, mixing the two here. As article names are being listed, rather than alphabetized, no sort key will be needed. applied through the boilerplate template. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk by itself, category "People" would contain hundreds of articles, so I don't recommend using it just yet to contain articles, just containing subcategories for now. Would it be useful to categorize every "people" article as both Category:People and a subcategory, or simply leave it as a supercategory containing subcategories. As it is, i think any organization or species that has a list of more than 10 or 20 known people belonging to it is valid for categorization -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 20:43, 25 May 2005 (UTC) *Subcategories based on military or service organizations, agencies, (Category:Organizations; Category:Agencies; etc), will use the form "NAME personnel". Former members who move on to other exploits may be double categorized. Members of sub-agencies or units that are able to be listed like that should also be categorized like that. -- for example, Spock is both in Starfleet personnel, and USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) personnel. *Subcategories based on species should take the form of their list article (people) -- the species name in plural (Category:Vulcans, humans, etc). Hybrids should be double categorized. *Subcategories based on Category:Governments or Category:Regions could take the form NAME citizens or NAME residents, i'm open for suggestions on this one if anyone has a better idea for final terminology. Category:Memory Alpha images This is a supercategory suggestion -- the top level for a category tree to sort images. I suggest using a basic "sort by series" approach -- identify each image as the production it came from -- with the naming convention Category:XXX images should it be "TOS images" or "TOS Season 1 images" (as the entire series would probably encompass a few hundred images, and all images should be cited with a season or episode reference) *Category:TOS images (supercategory, no articles) ** Category:TOS Season 1 images, TOS s2, etc. * Etc.. for each series TNG, DS9, ... *Category:Novels covers; Comics, etc ("covers" because we generally don't reproduce anything besides a cover of a publication so as to avoid an infringement). Additionally, any part of our existing category tree is open to having an "XXX images" category associated with it (and contained within it), once we discuss the details for how to classify the images (how much of a planet need be shown or described in an image to classify it into Category:Planet images, the sort key used, etc... -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 18:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) Suggestions As discussed on Ten Forward, I think image categories will be very useful in cataloguing what we currently have and also preventing the duplication of images. In addition to Captainmike's suggestions regarding season, series, novels, etc. I also recommend categories for characters, which could be structured something like this: *Category:Starfleet personnel images **Category:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) personnel images ***Category:Jean-Luc Picard images (create only for characters which have a large number of images) For ships, maybe something like this: *Category:Federation ship images **Category:Galaxy class images (can include exteriors and interiors) ***Category:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) images (again, only for ships which have a large number of images) Or for planets: *Category:Planet images **Category:Alpha and Beta Quadrant planet images ***Category:Earth images Clearly, many other areas can be categorized in such a fashion... perhaps a notice can be added to the upload page asking archivists to search and check image categories before uploading a new file. I think this will go a long way towards helping us make better use of pics. -- SmokeDetector47 // ''talk'' 19:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I think image categories only make sense to catalogue images for possible reuse. Memory Alpha is not an image gallery, so our categorization doesn't need to behave like a photo album. Instead, we can concentrate on optimizing this category structure for editors. I don't know if something like SERIES images or STARSHIP personnel images makes sense in that case. For character images, for example, I would suggest to start with something like: :*'People' :**'Single' :***'Headshot' :**'Groups' :Other "top categories" could be: :*'Location' (with possible subcategories "Indoor", "Outdoor" or more specific "Ten Forward" etc.) :*'Scene' (possible subcategories: "Fight", "Discussion", "Leisure" etc.) :*'Object' (with possible subcategories "Starships", "Planets", "Weapons", even "People" could be a subcategory of this) :-- Cid Highwind 18:44, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC) :I suggest to create the suggested Category:Memory Alpha images now and use a bot to add that link to all images we have. We can then continue the discussion about useful subcategories. -- Cid Highwind 17:01, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC) ::The sub categories we have in MA/de are "book covers", "computer games", "indoor", "starships", "starbases", "stellar objects", "persons" (though that might be subdivided in Meta-Trek) of course I would offer Morn's help, just tell me. -- Kobi - [[ :Kobi|( )]] 17:22, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC) ::There's now also "place" I've noticed. These categories can be very useful if your're searching for images for illustration, I was satisfied that I could use it "for the uniform". --Memory 11:18, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC) Arts and Music * Category: Arts and music. Either an all encompassing category, or one that features named works, like movies, songs, ect and other listed items in the rather lengthy Arts and music. Or make it larger and combine with recreation and call it Category: Arts and entertainment. --Gvsualan 07:37, 28 Jun 2005 (UTC) : Ditto from above, the wheels of progress move slowly around here. I really would appreciate some input on this! :) --Alan del Beccio 07:09, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC) ::Make it so. --Memory 11:18, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC) :::As above, perhaps split up (Arts and Music). Something like this should exist, but I'm not exactly sure about the names. -- Cid Highwind 14:39, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC) :::Had another look at the linked article Arts and music... I'd like to see suggestions for all subsections of that article. For example Category:Artists for people and so on... -- Cid Highwind 14:43, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC) This might be messy but how about: * Category:Arts (to include whatever does not fit into the below categories) ** Category:Art (inc. specific works and genres) ***Category:Artists (including sculptors, painters, and perhaps Trek universe actors (ie Alan Ladd).) ** Category:Music (inc. specific works, genres and instruments) ***Category:Musicians (and composers) ** Category:Literature (and plays - inc. specific works and genres) ***Category:Writers (and playwrights) -- shoot, I see in my preview that writers already belongs to Star Trek writers. --> UPDATE: Maybe make it Category:Authors or move the current "Writers" to Category:Star Trek writers?? ** Category:Art media (for television, radio, newspapers, magazines, and movies (perhaps certified holonovels as well).) *** Subcategory to list specific tv shows, movies, and newpapers, etc. * Category:Recreation ** Category:Games (for instances like poker, pool, etc) -- shoot, I see in my preview that games already belongs to Star Trek related games. --> UPDATE: Maybe move the current "Games" to Category:Star Trek games?? ** Category:Sports *** Category:Athletes (to include individuals who also play "Games".) Most of this is adapted from Wikipedia, but I think it is the best way to divide up the huge topic of arts and recreation. Additionally I thought there could be a topic Category:Entertainment, but I'm not sure where that would fit in, as it blurs the lines between art and recreation -- music and television are both entertainment, as is baseball and poker. Anyway, comments? -- Alan del Beccio 01:37, 12 Aug 2005 (UTC) Starbase ;The following was moved from Ten Forward by Shran : Hi All! This is to let you know that, in a bit, I'm creating a Category:Starbase for all the Starbase articles. I'll do it top-to-bottom of http://www.memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Special:Search?search=starbase&fulltext=Search. --User:Perfecto * This needs to at least be proposed before initiated, with some sort of support or additional suggestions or limitations. --Alan del Beccio 04:48, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC) * Personally, I don't see a problem with the way we have it now in list form. (However, if it is voted into existence...) Would this encompass other starbases as well? Or just Starfleet? IE: The Borg Unicomplex, The Tellarite station from "Bounty", the Klingon station at Ty'Gokor, Empok Nor, (specific names aren't coming to me, but) The alien bases seen in Voyager? - AJHalliwell 05:01, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC) * German MA has "Category:starbase" (Fed) and "Category:space station" (for the rest) - maybe "starbase" isn't really necessary, but it does no damage. --Memory 21:24, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC) * How about we do like we did with Category:Starships and Category:Federation starships, and create Category:Starbases and Category:Federation starbases?? --Alan del Beccio 04:30, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC) Holidays and festivals Based on Holidays and festivals, probably under either Category:Holidays, or the more broadened Category:Festivals. --Alan del Beccio 20:07, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC) *'Support' Category:Festivals... or maybe Category:Celebrations? A holiday is defined as an observed day that is free of work; In that sense, I don't think a lot of these would count as a holiday. Then again, that just may be one Andorian wannabe's thoughts. ;) --From Andoria with Love 06:38, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC) * Anyone else support Category:Celebrations? --Alan del Beccio 04:28, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC) Establishments Based on establishments, under, i dunno, maybe Category:Establishments -- which seems to be the appropriate name from what I can tell in wikipedia. --Alan del Beccio 05:51, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC) :Support. --From Andoria with Love 07:02, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC) Nonhumans Since we have a list page called nonhumans, why not make category:Nonhumans to encompass those, and all other individuals that don't fit into Category:Romulans, Category:Humans, Category:Klingons, et al? I'd image it would get quite large, but we could always splinter the Delta Quad individuals from the rest. --Alan del Beccio 21:04, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC) *Before I vote on this, are you saying the Nonhumans would not include those species who already have their own categories, i.e. Romulans and Klingons? I'm not sure if that would be right, since those races are nonhumans, after all. Then again, that would make it extremely large. Hmmm... --From Andoria with Love 06:43, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC) ** Well essentially how the page nonhumans is setup. We can always make Category:Romulans, Category:Vulcans, Category:Klingons (etc) all subcategories in this category. --Alan del Beccio 07:44, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC) ** Ooh, good point. Alrighty then, Support. :) --From Andoria with Love 07:59, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC) Species category:Species to encompass all species. --Alan del Beccio 21:04, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC) *'Strong Support'. I've been wondering why we didn't have this already? something about, "all things living" or something? - AJHalliwell 06:41, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC) :*'Strong Support'. Same reasons as A.J. --From Andoria with Love 06:54, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC) * Probably should add that this excludes those belonging to Category:Animals or Category:Plants. Those two can be made into sub-categories. --Alan del Beccio 07:51, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC) **Ugh, since Alpha and Beta Quadrant species, Delta Quadrant species, and Gamma Quadrant species are so huge, maybe Species should be a supercategory, and the rest categories in their own right. --Alan del Beccio 07:59, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC) * I don't think it needs to be subcategorised, the category could actually serve as an automated alphabetic list which would be too difficult to create in a conventional list -- Kobi - [[ :Kobi|( )]] 08:59, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC) Anatomy Category:Anatomy -- For things from eyes to Rotator_cuffs and beyond --Alan del Beccio 21:17, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC) :Strong Support, as there are plenty of them. I believe ear was the most recent. Remember, though, Ferengi "Lobes" and any other "nonhuman" appendages would also fit into this. ;) --From Andoria with Love 06:57, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC) * Hmmm...with the creation of Anatomy, we may need to create a Category:Physiology as well... --Alan del Beccio 07:26, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC) * Strong Support. Defiantly a good idea, as I have recently noticed with the creation of Hypothalamus etc. Although, I don't suppose there's away to combine the two somehow? - AJHalliwell 04:20, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC) * It might be a better idea to keep them apart, like we did with foods and beverages --> Category:Foods and Category:Beverages. If for some reason we come to something that fits in both...we can always categorize them as both. --Alan del Beccio 04:25, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC) Real People Not the most elegant-sounding category, but how about something to the extent of Category:Real people listing people mentioned or seen in Star Trek but who existed in real life and are not merely fictional characters, such as Leonardo da Vinci, Samuel Clemens, Amelia Earhart, and Stephen Hawking?--T smitts 03:20, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC) * The thing is, the perspective is outside looking in...since M/A is written in the Star Trek universe POV, they are all technically "real", unless they were created on the holodeck or come from a novel (ie Dixon Hill). --Alan del Beccio 03:42, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC) ** I can understand that. However by that logic, we really shouldn't have entries for episodes, series, movies, actors, writers, etc., should we? Nor should we have categories for things like performers for each series, as we do.--T smitts 06:56, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC) * I Support the idea, but the name definitely needs anew. - AJHalliwell 06:42, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC) **I agree. I would like to see something like this but with a better name.--T smitts 07:12, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC) * Aren't these people already in the Humans category? Anyway, it should be something like Category:Historical Earth figures or something along those lines, as all characters here are "real" from M/A's POV. Actually, that might not work either, since the likes of James T. Kirk, Richard Daystrom, and even Khan Noonien Singh can also be considered historical Earth figures. Truth-be-told, I'm not sure how such a category could work here, and until a way is found, I'm afraid I must Oppose the suggestion. Not a strong oppose, mind you, but an oppose nonetheless. --From Andoria with Love 06:52, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC) * RE:T smitts. Well there is obviously a line between what is in and what is out...and production stuff: episodes, actors, etc fit into that, but making lists from the outside looking in crosses that line. It goes into that whole issue we had with the creation of the Judaism page and filling it with the outside influences of Judaism to Trek. --Alan del Beccio 07:24, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC) * Hm, good points have convinced me to re-think this, especially the note of POV. - AJHalliwell 07:31, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC) *Somehow, I had a feeling this would be the response this category suggestion would get. I still think it would be a good idea but oh well. Whatever.--T smitts 07:35, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC) *I'm not saying I'm against it, I'm just saying we need to fomulate a way to do this. I mean, these individuals already belong to Category:Humans -- creating a "Real humans" type category to stack these individuals in would be horribly redundant. Why not just create a list of those people as a reference, similar to those POV articles based on multi-appearance characters and actors. --Alan del Beccio 07:54, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC) **I'm not quite sure what you mean, but maybe someone can explain it to me. (Don't bother trying to now, it's too late where I am right now for anything to sink in.)--T smitts 08:04, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC) Fictional characters In contrast to the above suggestion, a cetegory that lists all fictional characters that are not merely Category:Holograms, such as Ahab and Alan-a-Dale, those that come out of Star Trek perspective novels, movies and television. Perhaps it would just be easier to either a) make Holograms a subcategory to this (since Dixon Hill characters fit both categories) or b) get rid or Holograms and create this one to cover both Ahab and Category:Holograms.--Alan del Beccio 05:06, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC) *I oppose. Since Ahab and Alan-a-Dale are never actually in Star Trek, I don't even see much of a point for their pages here. Sure, they were referenced, but so were about a million other things that Star Trek didn't offer anything new to. As I see it, Memory Alpha doesn't care about Ahab, the fictional character, it only cares about the fact that he was referenced. Any fictional characters that I would deem important are shown as holograms, and listed under Category:Holograms. Also, in some aspects, the two categories are incompatible, like for holograms that are not fictional characters, like The Doctor.-[[User:Platypus222|'Platypus Man']] | ''Talk'' 05:19, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC) ** Well for one, the fact that the article exists already legitimizes them --in other words, Memory Alpha cares about them or they would have been deleted a long time ago. That in itself kills half of your opposition. Nevertheless, they are categorizable individuals that do not quite fit into Category:Humans and don't fit into Category:Holograms. Therefore why this suggestion was posted. --Alan del Beccio 06:32, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC) ***OK, the article should exist, but as I see it, to Memory Alpha, Ahab is not an individual or a fictional character, he is a reference in First Contact. -[[User:Platypus222|'Platypus Man']] | ''Talk'' 21:35, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)